Standing Committee A

[Mr. Nigel Beard in the Chair]

Traffic Management Bill

Clause 40 - Fixed penalty offences

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in
page 18, leave out lines 39 to 41.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 46, in 
page 19, leave out lines 1 to 3.
 No. 47, in 
page 19, leave out lines 4 and 5.

Christopher Chope: The clause deals with the vexed issue of fixed penalties. Amendment No. 45 would mean that proposed section 95A(2) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 would be left out. The amendment was tabled to probe the Minister on why
''offences by bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships''
 will not be subject to the fixed penalty regime. 
 Amendment No. 46 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to add fixed penalty offences to the schedule, or delete them from it. In that context, will the Minister explain a bit more about his thinking on which offences should be subject to the fixed penalty regime and which should not? I have severe reservations about the fixed penalty regime. On the face of it, the offences chosen as fixed penalty offences are not the critical ones. I have in mind, for example, the failure to comply with a section 66(1) duty 
''to carry on and complete certain street works with all reasonably practicable dispatch''.
 That offence carries a maximum penalty of level 5. However, it goes to the heart of what the Bill is about: speeding up work and avoiding undue delay. If the Minister feels that the offence is serious, and that the enforcement authorities should take it seriously but will be inhibited from prosecuting because of the fear that they will face substantial costs and will not get any income from the fines, why is the offence not included in the fixed penalty regime? Does he have it in mind to include it at a later stage—in regulation—when we cannot possibly scrutinise the proposal properly? 
 In addition, why is the failure to comply with duties under section 71— 
''prescribed requirements as to materials and workmanship and performance standards for reinstatements''—
 not a fixed penalty offence? It is an important and critical issue. Why is it not subject to fixed penalties, even though other matters that we might regard as rather trivial are? 
 Can the Minister explain the situation in relation to continuing offences? One of the big bugbears of the motoring public, who are subject to fixed penalty notices, is that they get a sticker on their car because it is parked in the wrong place or has overstayed the time allowed, and then a few minutes or hours later they get another sticker on the car because it is parked in the same place. Can we be sure that the fixed penalty regime will not be used iteratively against people for the same wrongdoing? I would be grateful to hear what the Minister can tell us about that. 
 The debate on this group of amendments gives us an opportunity to probe the Minister about the thinking behind the fixed penalty regime.

Tony McNulty: It is a pleasure to be under your tutelage once again, Mr. Beard, but I hope—I mean this in the nicest sense—we will not be under it for too much longer.
 The points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) are entirely fair. I hope that I can address them. Amendment No. 45 refers to section 166 of the 1991 Act, which provides that when an offence is committed with the consent or connivance of, or owing to the neglect of, a director, manager, secretary, partner or similar officer of the body corporate or partnership—I mean of the body corporate—the individual as well as the body corporate or partnership is guilty of an offence. 
 Clause 40 inserts new section 95A(2) in the 1991 Act, which provides that in such cases the offence would not be dealt with by means of fixed penalty notice, but through the courts. It is important to recognise the two-tier approach of the fixed penalty notice and due course through the courts. Amendment No. 45 would allow such offences to be subject to fixed penalty notices after all. 
 The distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw out of me is essentially—not entirely—between the noticing offences that are subject to fixed penalties, which we discussed this morning, and the more serious ones that are not. 
 I am sure that that is not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 45, but some offences might involve circumstances in which the negligence of an individual contributes to the death of a worker on the site of a works or road works. I am sure that nobody would think that a fixed penalty notice deals with that appropriately.

Greg Knight: Subsection (2) refers to
''(offences by bodies corporate)''.
 In his introduction, the Minister said, ''bodies corporate or partnerships,'' and then corrected himself, effectively deleting ''partnerships''. Will he clarify the situation by telling the Committee whether partnerships fall within the ambit?

Tony McNulty: If I gave the impression of correcting myself, it is because I read the wrong line in my speech, and I came on to partnerships subsequently. Partnership is there only in the same context as in section 166 of the 1991 Act, which refers to
''bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships''.
 Not being a lawyer, and certainly not being a Scottish lawyer, although there is nothing wrong with them, I can only assume that that is a reference to the context under Scottish law.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He is saying that bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships are not subject to fixed penalty offences. One might face a situation in which one particular firm that has committed an offence is a body corporate—a limited company. Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones who trade together then commit the same offence, but they are an unlimited partnership. Why should there be a difference in treatment when one is dealing with a small company, which has very little difference to a partnership?

Tony McNulty: I have said once or twice before that I hope to get some inspiration from someone behind me, but I assume that the definition of body corporate is all inclusive. Neither the 1991 Act nor the Bill seeks narrowly to define body corporate as a limited company with liability guaranteed by its public status. I am pretty sure that that is the answer; if it is otherwise, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. The important point is that a whole series of more serious offences warrant a different penalty to those in the fixed penalty regime.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch rightly said that the thrust of the proposal is to hasten not delay the process. The noticing offences are important to the process of carrying out street works efficiently, but the distinction between what should and should not receive a fixed penalty notice is important, not least for the reasons I suggested—admittedly, in the most extreme circumstances. If there were pressing manslaughter or more serious charges, a fixed penalty notice would not cover the offence appropriately. If the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce body corporate matters, a fixed penalty notice may well be inappropriate—admittedly, in extremis. There are serious offences under the Bill and the principal Act that are important enough to be dealt with by the courts rather than a fixed penalty notice. As the hon. Member for Christchurch was suggesting, it would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or the reverse, if all the offences carried a fixed penalty notice. We might then stray into the realms of inefficiency and greater bureaucracy, which is not the Bill's intention. 
 Equally, because, as ever, the hon. Gentleman is right but for the wrong reasons, the list of offences in the Bill is not intended to be definitive. It has been arrived at largely as a result of the work done by the working party of utilities and local authorities, which roughly agreed the list of offences and agreed that some would be more suitable to fixed penalty notices and some better dealt with through the courts. However, we will have to resist amendment No. 46, because we want to retain flexibility—this is where the conspiracy theory comes in—to add to the list of offences carrying a fixed penalty notice, and equally, when we have seen how the list works in practice over 
 time, to remove some offences. Amendment No. 46 would remove the flexibility to modify the list of fixed penalty notices. 
 I believe that amendment No. 47 is consequential on amendment No. 46 and removes a reference in subsection (4) of new section 95A to orders that add or remove fixed penalty notices being subject to affirmative resolution. 
 The hon. Gentleman's points are entirely fair, in a probing fashion. However, for some offences in the schedule, it is appropriate to go down the fixed penalty notice route, and for others it is not.

Christopher Chope: Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the issue of iterative offences, which I raised?

Tony McNulty: We do not intend to go down that route. The intention of the fixed penalty notice regime is to have the offence dealt with in summary fashion, so that the company and the street works authority can move on. It is not envisaged that more and more tickets will be put on the offending item, if the offence is continuous, although it is incumbent on people, once they commit an offence, to correct that situation. Therefore, while it sounds all very nice to talk about the poor, put-upon motorist having ticket after ticket put on their vehicle, ticket after ticket goes on because they are continuing to commit the offence. It is easy to suggest, in a populist way, that that is terrible, but if the offence continues to be committed, it is appropriate, in the case of motoring offences, that subsequent notices are given. It is not envisaged—I am sorry that I missed this point—that we should adopt that iterative process in the different circumstances of the fixed penalty notice regime and street works.
 I am told that partnerships are joint and severally liable, so each individual is liable. If that makes sense to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), he can say ''Thank you'', and we can move on. However, I think that a fuller answer is required, and I shall make sure that he gets it.

John Redwood: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I have not quite understood how he has dealt with the real points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
 Amendment No. 45 was designed to find out why bodies corporate and partnerships should be treated differently under the schedule, and I take that schedule to mean schedule 4A, which is mentioned in subsection (1). I do not believe that that relates to serious offences such as those to do with manslaughter or death. Of course such offences would be handled differently, as they would be if the offences were committed by individuals. The Bill would not allow a fixed penalty notice to be imposed on someone who had driven dangerously and killed somebody, so I did not understand that part of the Minister's reply. The question remains a fair one: why are the offences in that schedule to be treated differently if they are committed by 
''bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships''?
 My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire put the point well when he said that there may be little apparent difference, other than a legal one, between a 
 small body corporate and a typical English partnership, yet it is proposed that they be treated differently. So, I am inclined to vote for amendment No. 45, if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch gets permission to and wishes to press it, unless we have a better explanation. 
 I am also not satisfied with the Minister's response to amendment No. 46. It is much better that Parliament should control what goes into and out of the schedules, as we are seeking to do. It is beholden on the Government to come forward with a definitive list today. The Bill is, after all, building on legislation from 1991, so there has been plenty of operating experience on the issues. Should the legislation, in due course, turn out to be faulty, because of having too many or too few provisions in the schedule, the normal process should be observed to add or remove them. I am not very happy with the proposal in the Bill. So, if my hon. Friend wishes to and has leave to press his amendments to a vote, it would be a good idea for the Committee to support them in default of a more convincing reason from the ministerial Benches as to why the Minister should have the substantial power to play around with the legislation after Parliament has approved it.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but it did not answer my question. I am aware that where partners commit an offence in the name of the partnership, they are jointly and severally liable. What I was asking is, why are they being treated differently, if, as it appears, they are being? In other words, why are the partners likely to get the benefit of a fixed penalty offence and yet, if they decide to incorporate themselves into a company, they will lose the ability to be ticketed in that way?

Christopher Chope: I was hoping that the Minister would respond to the points made by my two right hon. Friends. It is obvious that he has not yet persuaded the Committee on the subject. While my right hon. Friends have been speaking, the Minister has been bombarded with material.

Tony McNulty: Just one flimsy piece of paper.

Christopher Chope: I think that the Minister is criticising his officials, which is not very sporting of a Minister, in saying that he has had only one flimsy bit of paper. Whatever is on that paper, I hope that the Minister will share it with the Committee. If that does not persuade us, I would seek your leave, Mr. Beard, to put both amendments Nos. 45 and 46 to the vote.

Tony McNulty: I am sorely provoked to get up, not least because the one thing that I was not doing in any shape or form was criticising my officials, and, since I take that point seriously, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the claim. I do not do that in any shape or form. My criticism is of the hon. Gentleman. Receiving simply one piece of paper does not represent a bombardment.
 I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, and this is not a criticism of my officials either, but more my attempt to understand the more 
 arcane definitions of business law, that the reference in the Bill to 
''bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships''
 is a function of the different legal bases. Scottish partnerships means something clear in a Scottish dimension, and body corporate means something else in the English and Welsh dimension. I am not sure whether body corporate is a generic term that covers all forms of business organisation, so that what the right hon. Gentleman suggests does not prevail, or whether it means narrowly, as the right hon. Gentleman said, public companies. I will endeavour to find that out. 
 I do not believe that it is appropriate to have no fixed penalty regime, as has been alluded to if not suggested. Nor do I feel that all the offences in the schedule should be part of that regime. In that sense I am disappointed with myself that I have not managed to persuade the whole Committee of my arguments, even if I rather hope that I have at least a goodly part of the Committee with me, and that the hon. Member for Christchurch speaks not for the Committee in the body corporate sense, but for part of it only. 
 A fixed penalty offences regime is important, because it will speed up the process. Secondly, it is inappropriate to have the body corporate responsible for what are important, but principally noticing offences. None the less, those should not be swept up with section 166, and there should be a distinction between those that are covered by fixed penalty notice, and those that are not. The provision more or less, although not entirely, reflects the gradations to which we changed the levels of offences in the earlier clause. Lastly, Parliament will control any future list of fixed penalty notice offences, as the order adding or subtracting offences from the list would be affirmative and would be debated in Parliament. Where a strategic, broad, overarching legislative framework is put on the face of statute, and there are any number of subsequent statutory instruments, regulations, guidance and everything else, it is important that caveats and processes are put in place to allow Parliament further scrutiny some way down the line, long after the Bill has become an Act. This is not a post-1997 phenomenon, as the 1991 Act clearly shows. 
 I am told that the 1991 Act does not change the ordinary law of England and Wales in respect of partnerships, bodies corporate or sole traders, and nor does the Bill. I am not pretending that I have a full grasp of corporate law, but again I am not sure that that is entirely what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire was after, so I shall write to him and the Committee, as fully as I can, to explain the difference and distinction, and quite what is and is not covered by the phrase ''body corporate''. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 46, in 
page 19, leave out lines 1 to 3.—[Mr. Chope.]
 The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps this is a convenient moment to raise with the Minister some questions about this fixed penalty notice regime. Will he tell us to whom the penalty will be paid, and in what manner? What will the levels of the penalty and the discounted rate be? What use will the street authority be permitted to make of the money collected in penalties? What are the arrangements for undertakers to contest and appeal against the fixed penalty notices?
 I understand that the Government are considering the possibility of authorities retaining some or all of the fine income to offset the cost of operating a fixed penalty notice scheme. Is the Minister able to say whether that has received the authority of the Treasury, and if so, what will the terms of the scheme be? We need assurances that the fixed penalty scheme is not going to be a revenue-raising regime akin to what many people think of the safety camera regime.

John Thurso: If the hon. Member for Christchurch were to press the clause stand part debate to a Division, I would support him. My reason is that I dislike intensely fixed penalty notices in such cases. When I was involved in business, I was struck by the fact that one often found one was making commercial judgments when dealing with the law. One weighed up the cost of going to law and the cost of settling, and nine times out of 10, irrespective of the merits of the case, one simply settled because it was the cheapest and fastest way out.
 The same thing happens with fixed penalties. One looks at what might happen if one chose to go to law 
 and fight one's case. One may get a criminal record; one may well lose. There might be a 50:50 chance, or even a 40:60 one, of that happening. At the end of the day, one weighs up going through that process against paying a fixed, known amount of money, which has the merit of being a known cost that can be got out of the way, leaving nothing on the criminal record. 
 In an area such as this, there is an intense temptation for those in a position to issue fixed penalties to do so because it is much easier. We heard this morning how few prosecutions there have been, possibly because of the difficulty of securing a conviction, and because of the efficacy of the fine regime. If a situation arises where all one has to do is write a fixed notice and slap that on the offender, as it were, there will clearly be the possibility to give such notices in the case of many more offences, and I have severe doubts as to whether people in such cases are necessarily guilty of the crime of which they have been charged. I have great concern that that process may lead—unintentionally I am sure—to the fixed penalty regime becoming a revenue-raising mechanism. It is for that reason that I voted aye during the votes on the amendments, and I shall vote no on the clause.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to his support in the vote.

Tony McNulty: As is clear from the regulatory impact assessment and other matters, details of the fixed penalty notice regime, appeals, fine rates, methods of payment and so on will be made by regulations. A working group of Department for Transport utilities and authorities will consider the matter and make recommendations to Ministers in due course, as I explained in relation to the earlier document that gave us a little road map for proposed regulations, schedules and so on.
 We need to prepare the regulations, and work will start as soon as possible, but we want to proceed in a context of agreement, as with other aspects of the Bill. I have some sympathy with all the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), except his conclusion. Within his contribution lies the very reason we want to distinguish between—for want of a better phrase; they are still important—lower offences that will attract the fixed penalty notice regime and more serious offences. That is right and proper. The regulations, which are still to come, will, as the clause states, allow certain offences to be the subject of fixed penalties rather than automatic criminal prosecution. Of course, discussions still need to be carried out with other Departments on where all the moneys will eventually accrue, but I envisage at least an element going to the cost of administration of the fixed penalty regime, although I will probably be berated by another Department for saying so. 
 I do not accept for one moment that because the fixed penalty is an encumbrance for some people in business—it is self-inflicted if they commit an offence—that all of a sudden every single fixed penalty notice regime that ever existed, from safety cameras all the way through to parking and 
 incorporating what is contained in the Bill, is somehow a revenue-raising scam. That is not the case for these matters, for speed cameras or for most fixed penalty notices. It is said, albeit very politely—such comments are always couched in phrases such as ''Some may suggest'' or ''There are those who think that''—that speed cameras are merely for raising revenue, but the other side of the equation is not presented. Again, in this case as in others, we are not setting up offences or reinforcing those in the 1991 Act with the hope and prayer that people will commit offences. We would far rather the law was not transgressed and that no fixed penalty notices were issued.

John Thurso: I agree with the Minister on speed cameras. One virtue of the speed camera is that it provides incontrovertible proof that the offence took place. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a miscarriage of justice. However, as I understand it, it is possible with the sort of offences in the Bill that there may be a much more subjective judgment as to whether an offence has taken place—there is far less proof. Therefore, leaving revenue raising completely to one side, my question is whether justice will actually be served, in that people may simply take the pragmatic approach of paying rather than seeking to clear themselves, because it is so much cheaper.

Tony McNulty: I accept that, but, in a way, it is a matter for the individuals themselves. I would hope that as a result of our earlier actions in updating the levels of fines, that will not happen when going through the court process, and at least when we are considering them in the context of the regulations.
 We must understand that the offences are not simply one-off occasions. I cannot remember the exact figure, but I believe that there are some 1.1 million incursions into our roads and streets every year. In each individual case, people may think, ''I can't be bothered, I might as well just pay the fine'', but if that happens on a recurring basis, the cumulative fixed penalty notices and fines or levies will mount up. The measure is not about putting impediments in front of people but about encouraging good practice and the efficient use of our streets. As I said, most of the offences in this category will be more on the noticing, co-ordination and liaison side, rather than for the far more serious transgressions that will be taken through the courts. 
 We think that this is the appropriate way to take things forward. There is a series of offences involving due notice given for various things. It will be fairly clear that the operator, for want of a better word, has or has not given due notice as required under the noticing offences. It is not as though one needs a digital camera or CCTV set up over every single incursion into the street to know whether the offences listed in the relevant schedule have been breached. Again, that reinforces why we want to keep very distinct those that are under fixed penalty notice and those that are left to the court. That is why the distinction, which we have discussed, is there. I ask the 
 hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross not to forge an unholy alliance with the official Opposition, but, in true Liberal Democrat tradition—

Greg Knight: To make a Lib-Lab pact?

Tony McNulty: No. The right hon. Gentleman should wait. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross should either sit on his hands in true Liberal Democrat tradition, or vote with the Government. There are options.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Schedule 4A to the New Roads and

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I ask the Minister for clarification. One distinction between schedules 1 and 2 is that in schedule 1 there are offences with a maximum fine at level five, whereas the first three offences specified in schedule 2 carry a maximum fine at only level four. Can the Minister confirm that the other three offences in schedule 2 at the top of page 59 also carry a maximum penalty at level four rather than level five?

Tony McNulty: As far as I am aware and unless I hear otherwise, they do. During our debate this morning I said that, broadly, those offences that now attract level four fines are the noticing type of offences, as can be seen from much of schedule 2, but those that attract level five fines are more serious and require more than simply just noticing. The first three offences covered by the schedule, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, concern advance notice of certain works, notice of starting date and notice of emergency works. The subsequent offences involve offences under sections 70(6), 74(7B) and 74A(11) of the 1991 Act and are subject to level four penalties, which maintains the split between important but less serious offences—less serious only in terms of the fine maximums they attract—and the others. All the offences in schedule 2 will attract level four fines, as the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested. I am glad that he allowed me to make that point. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
 Question put, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 - Schedule 4B to the New Roads and

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: I seek information from the Minister on the schedule. Paragraphs 4(2) and 5(1) refer to the penalty period and to
''the day on which the notice is given.''
 When the Minister draws up the regulations or the guidelines, will he clarify what the words ''notice is given'' mean? Do they mean the date when the notice is issued or the date when the notice is received, or deemed to have been received, by the person alleged to have committed an offence? I hope that it means the latter if the notice is not served personally, because if the notice is issued on, say, Maundy Thursday, the person to whom it is addressed may not receive it until well over a week later because of the Easter holiday. 
 That takes me to paragraph 6, which refers to a person being served with a fixed penalty notice. What in the regulations or guidance will the Minister say is service? When I had my law practice, we operated under the strict rule that if we were acting on behalf of a plaintiff and were instructed to serve a writ on a defendant, we had to serve the writ. That meant the solicitor or his articled clerk going out, usually at teatime, to the defendant's address and knocking on his door. If his wife answered the door, the solicitor had to ask to see the defendant and, as soon as he saw him, physically touch him with the document. What the defendant then did with the document did not matter: he could throw it away, throw it at the person who had served it or put it under the windscreen wiper of his car. He had been served. The solicitor had touched him with the document and had therefore given him the opportunity to respond to it. 
 Does service mean that in the schedule? I am becoming increasingly concerned that these days a growing number of bodies seem to think that, if a document is put in a post box with a postage stamp affixed to it, that is service and it is deemed to be operative from the next day. For the last three weeks, I have sent post to my constituents in House of Commons envelopes with a first-class stamp, and they have not received it the following day. In some 
 cases, the post has taken three days to arrive. I cannot see how, when one is alleging that someone has committed an offence, one can simply put the fixed penalty ticket in a letter box and assume that the person receives it the following day: it may take two or three days to arrive. Proof of service should be a requirement of the person issuing the ticket. 
 One cannot even rely on Departments if one is seeking to serve something through the post. A few years back, I needed to have a motor vehicle document altered, so I posted it to the DVLA in Nottingham, to the address in the phone book. Having heard nothing for five weeks, I telephoned and was told, ''We've left that office. We now occupy new premises.'' I said, ''Surely you've got your post on divert.'' I should have thought that a Department of government would at least have done that, but it had not bothered to do so. The document was lost, and I had to make a declaration. I do not want to hear the Minister say that partnerships and those doing this sort of work should make sure that they read their post every day, because Departments do not do it and do not even notify the public when they change their address.

Christopher Chope: I also want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions about the schedule. First, paragraph 6(5) says:
''In proceedings for the offence a certificate which—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the street authority''.
 Will the Minister explain why it does not have to be signed by that person? That seems a very odd state of affairs. Will he also comment on the suggestion that an authority that imposes a notice, which it subsequently withdraws, should be liable for compensation for the costs and inconvenience incurred as a result of the false issue of the notice? Will he comment on paragraph 8 that refers to the Secretary of State being able, 
''with the consent of the Treasury'',
 to make regulations about the fixed penalties? Will he explain why it is necessary for the Treasury to be party to that? 
 Will he provide some idea of the circumstances in which he expects fixed penalty notices not to be given? Will he also provide an idea of the periods within which it is reasonable for those notices to be given and to be paid? Paragraph 4(2) states a ''period of 29 days'', which is a pretty tight procedure for a large organisation to pay the penalty notice. If the notice is contested, the 29 days continue to run, which would inhibit the statutory undertaker from querying the fairness of its issue.

John Thurso: I ask one question of the Minister, which relates to paragraph 7 and the power to withdraw notices. It gives the street authority the power to withdraw notices if it thinks that it
''ought not to have been given''.
 Paragraph 7(3) states: 
''The street authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the recipient of a fixed penalty notice and decide in all circumstances whether to withdraw the notice.''
 Will there be any form of independent adjudication, which I understand to be the case in most fixed penalty notice regimes?

John Redwood: I share the worries of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and others who think that we would benefit from greater clarity. I would add to the worries that my right hon. Friend expressed the possibility that a company or an individual may have moved address between the time that the authority first researched the alleged infringement and the delivery of the ticket for the offence. Forwarding arrangements do not always work well. Would it be regarded as good service to have delivered the fixed penalty notice to the old address of the individual or company when they may have been genuinely unaware of the alleged offence and they did not get the document forwarded through the post?
 We also need to know what happens in the event of an individual receiving a ticket and not paying it within the specified time. How much grace will they be given, given the vagaries of the postal system and the difficulty of sometimes getting the requisite amount of money back? What action will the Government take if they feel that the delay by the person in receipt of the ticket has been unreasonable? We need to understand that in the modern world the post can go astray, people may have moved address, there may be difficulties in due service and that there may not have been a delay by the person in receipt of the ticket; it may have been the delay or non-arrival of the fixed penalty notice. 
 The London authorities have found many such cases with the congestion charge, in which there is an accumulating penalty on those who do not pay. It seems unfair if the individual is unaware that they infringed the congestion charge zone and they have not received the ticket at the address at which they normally reside in a timely way that enables them to respond and pay. We should learn from those experiences of difficulty in compliance, rather than non-compliance, which seem to be emerging in many of the fixed penalty regimes, and we should try to do rather better with this one. We want payments due to be paid in a timely way, but we also want the person targeted for the penalty payment to know in good time and to have the proper amount of time to respond or appeal if they think that the penalty is unreasonable. I am not sure that that is embedded in the schedule. It may need a little work to reach that happy state. I would have thought that the Minister would want that as much I do.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. They raise fair points that, ironically or otherwise, reinforce what I was saying earlier about there needing to be a hierarchy between the less serious—if I can put it in those terms—offences and the more serious offences. We must bear it in mind that we are talking about six offences under new schedule 4A to the 1991 Act that are all about active works that are taking place at the time. Let me remind the Committee that we are talking about advance notice of certain works; notice of starting
 dates, emergency works and completion of reinstatement; the
''charge for occupation of the highway where works unreasonably delayed'';
 and the 
''charge determined by reference to duration of works''.
 We are talking about those six offences to begin with, and no more. 
 On the point about adjudication and the subsequent appeal, in the first instance, I would request that the working party look at that matter. Those directly involved at both ends—in implementing the process and in other respects—will make recommendations to us, which will be reflected in regulations. The details of the regime, appeals, fine rates and methods of payment will all be reflected in the regulations, through the working party.

Greg Knight: Is it one option to include someone who represents business—the small business man likely to be affected—on the working party?

Tony McNulty: We may consider that, although I would rather stick with the working party that exists. I will explore matters and get back to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. If there is a way of enabling Committee members to peruse the report from the working party and subsequent regulations prior to the formal parliamentary process, I am more than happy to explore it, because I would value that.
 We need to ensure that we include an array of people who reflect the utilities industry—if that is the word—at its broadest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said some time ago—it feels like months ago—there are very small entrepreneur outfits that are ploughing on with broadband and the high IT end of street works. We need to ensure that that is reflected, and I will try to do so. 
 I would value the input of the Committee at the appropriate stage during the deliberations. That is entirely right and will make for a more informed debate when we discuss the regulations. It would be more than appropriate, given the rather Christmas-tree nature of the Bill when it comes to regulations and so on. 
 The rules of service are as in section 97 of the 1991 Act. I know that it is not terribly helpful to go back to that section, but if we look behind it, it is clear what the rules of service are. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire made a point about which date should prevail—when the notice is sent, or when it is received. It is the latter: when the notice is received. 
 In the broader context, were it not for advances in technology, some of the points made would have merit. Given that we are talking about live works and that the transgressions are principally about noticing, it would be extremely rare for a utility company—small or large—to move office for the duration of whatever street work is required. In the broader sense, I take the point about the vagaries of the postal system.

John Mann: May I ask a small question of clarification? Will any of the sanctions
 apply to a local authority that, for example, fails to give due notice?

Tony McNulty: It will not, in terms of the fixed penalty notice, because they will not be serving fixed penalty notices on themselves. We have entertained that debate at other times. Throughout the Bill, the same duties are being afforded to local authorities to comply with as are afforded to utilities and other contractors who engage in street works, but through different routes. We will not have a stage at which one part of the local authority will impose a fixed penalty notice on another.

John Redwood: I can give the Minister a personal example of the mistakes that happen. My house in London is close to a small office building in the adjacent street. The office put in for a planning application, which was granted, for major refurbishment works. The local authority mistook the address and put mine on all the documentation. I received all the bills and notices for the contractor, which I could have done without. I am pleased to say that I managed to duly serve them on the contractor, but had it been during the long summer break, when I am away, the documents would have sat there for a long time with no action taken. I do not know whether I would have been in more trouble or the company, but I hope that it would have been the company.

Tony McNulty: I take that point. Mistakes will invariably be made. That will be a matter for the adjudication process that the working group comes up with. Where it is so clear and stark that there has been an error in that regard, with the wrong company served or whatever, it is appropriate that that is duly recognised.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the phrase ''purports to be signed''. I am told that it is standard legalistic phraseology and means that documents can be signed by an authorised person on behalf of the local authorities. Clearly, the London borough of Westminster does not sign documents itself, but needs an authorised person to sign on its behalf. I am told that ''purported to'' means that and simply that. Like a lot of little buzz words that, to me, do not resemble English, let alone anything else, there is a logic to that in the legalistic world haunted by, among others, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. 
 All the points made are important and I understand them. I am not trying to underplay the notion of mistakes, but given that we are talking about six offences that are principally noticing offences for live works, rather than something that is being chased up three or four years later, that the schedule as laid out is reasonable, and makes reasonable amendments to the 1991 Act. I commend the schedule to the Committee. 
 Question put, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 41 - Duty of street authority to

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
page 19, line 28, leave out 'the execution of works in the street or'.

Christopher Chope: This is a probing amendment, which is intended to ascertain from the Minister why there is an exception that excludes the execution of works in the street. That does not seem very sensible, but I am sure that there must be a proper explanation for it, and I ask the Minister to share it with the Committee.

Tony McNulty: The amendment would change the clause, because of what appears to be a defect, by removing the exemption of the execution of works from the definition of ''relevant activities''. However, I am assured that there is no need to do that. The clause extends the scope of section 59 of the 1991 Act to include ''relevant activities'', which would cover the placement of skips and other such activities that do not qualify as works. In defining the term, it exempts the execution of works in the street as well as use by traffic.
 Hon. Members will be glad to know that the only reason that works are exempted here is that they are already covered in section 59(1) of the 1991 Act. I can understand how the provision looked like a flaw or a defect, but the matter is already covered by section 59(1), which refers to 
''general duty of street authority to co-ordinate works''.
 Although I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from—it is certainly how I would have read the clause at first—I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Will he explain why section 59(1) covers only works carried out by bodies other than the street authority or its contractors? If that is so, my amendment would create more of a level playing field so that the provision would apply to works carried out by those other than contractors or by the street authority.

Tony McNulty: As I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) earlier, there is a level playing field. It does not appear in every clause but, through the statutory duty or otherwise, it is covered. In this case section 59(1) covers co-ordination of utilities and local authority works. If one looks further on in the clause, it also covers the co-ordination of other street authorities where working on a street for which one authority is responsible affects streets for which other authorities are responsible.

Christopher Chope: In the light of the Minister's helpful explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Directions relating to

Brian White: I beg to move amendment No. 197, in
page 20, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert— 
 ' ''(3A) An undertaker shall be taken not to have failed to fulfil any statutory or contractual duty to afford a supply or service if, or to the extent that, his failure is attributable to a direction under this section''.'.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 204, in
page 20, line 18, at beginning insert 'solely'.

Brian White: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for reading John Grisham at Christmas and being tempted down the route of examining contractual issues. Having had discussions with a number of companies about broadband, one of the things that they pointed out about the Bill is that there is no protection for contractual work to provide and maintain a service. Many of the utility companies, particularly the newer ones, have contracts with customers to supply services on strict delivery time scales with penalties applying, and so on. The concern is where either there are long-term contracts that have already been entered into, or where there are penalties involved, and whether the operator of the scheme will unduly enforce penalties. In other words, I am seeking an understanding from my hon. Friend that the operation of permit schemes, or of various other statutory schemes, will not result in penalties for operating companies arising from circumstances that are outside of their control. If the problem is their fault, that is fine—they have control and can take measures to avoid any problems—but if the problem emerges as a direct result of factors outside the company's control, they might feel that there is an issue that my hon. Friend could address. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but I would seek my hon. Friend's assurances on these points.

David Wilshire: I shall be brief, Mr. Beard. Amendment No. 204 seeks to insert, in subsection (4) on page 20, the word ''solely'', so that the provision reads that
''an undertaker shall be taken not to have failed to fulfil any statutory duty to afford a supply or service if, or to the extent that, his failure is solely attributable to a direction under this section.''
 If one is saying that there is a new power to make directions, and that that has an effect upon an outcome, that is what it should be. It should not be partially that, and partially something else. I would be interested in the Minister's comments.

John Mann: I have a slight concern, which relates to the intervention that I made on the Minister a few minutes ago, on the interrelationship between the local authority and the private contractor. My experience of the appropriate local authorities—indeed, it is the case with my own local authority in recent weeks—is that they are not necessarily too coherent in their own planning. One of the pressures is the expenditure of end-of-year budgets, which could lead to large amounts of street works being carried out by them in February and March. There is a danger that they may, on occasion, be tempted to overuse their position in being able to direct private operators who are carrying out street works. This danger of arbitrary decision-making by the local authority needs to be considered, especially as there will be no sanctions on the local authority. I would prefer to see the Minister have some sanctioning powers.
 With public good will and business efficiency at stake when dealing with the movement of traffic, examples such as the closing of one of the major artery lanes in Worksop town centre as a result of an experiment undertaken by the local authority can have significant knock-on effects, and I would not want to be in a position whereby, having done that, the local authority attempts to use its powers to pressure any of the utilities in any way. I seek assurance from the Minister that those powers would not be there with this or any other clause. 
 The other example I could cite is much more recent. It is the removal of the road humps in Manton, a long-overdue process. If we were to consider notification of start dates and end dates, change to notification at the last minute, and failure to notify the general public or indeed anybody else of what was going on, it would be a classic case of a local authority trying to balance its available direct labour and sub-contractors to fit in with other priorities and to change what it was doing. That is precisely the problem that seems to have bedevilled private operators, and it may have led to the introduction of the Bill in the first place. 
 I seek an assurance that having wisely determined, as the example of the road humps illustrates, to execute works on the street, local authorities would not have any powers that could, by default, lead them to be prejudiced in their thinking over other powers that might be available.

Tony McNulty: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw that the key difference between the current positions that he describes and the world as it will be if the Bill prevails and becomes an Act is that a local authority would not act in such a fashion if that impinged on what clause 16 provides about network management duty. At present, local authorities do not need to ensure, although many do, that the execution of their own works is carried out effectively and efficiently in the way outlined by that clause.
 I shall disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, but not because I want to berate him for reading John Grisham. I quite enjoy John Grisham, whose work is far better than some of the other lighter-weight literature that one reads over holiday periods, especially from disgraced former Tory peers. It is not for the Bill to determine or change in any way the body of law relating to tort or contract law, so I cannot change the Bill or make changes to contract law to reflect what is in the Bill. It happens the other way round. It is up to those who enter into commercial or private street works contracts to reflect the changes in legislation that the enactment of the Bill will bring about. It is not for the Bill to take account of contractual relationships entered into by utilities or others.

Brian White: The Government wish to extend broadband throughout the country, and a key feature of that is the speed with which companies can respond to their customers. One fear is that a knock-on effect of the clause could be to put a brake on that and hold companies back. It is to prevent that that I have raised the issue with my hon. Friend the Minister.

Tony McNulty: I fully understand why the issue was raised. It is important that it is on the record, if only to inform the working group's subsequent discussion on what we want, which is the most effective and speedy implementation of broadband. However, it is not our duty to allude in the Bill to commercial contractual relationships entered into subsequent to the Bill. The Bill prevails, period. Therefore, anyone entering into a subsequent contractual relationship will have to accept the full measure of whatever powers to direct the Bill contains, when it is enacted.

Andrew Miller: I follow the logic of my hon. Friend's position. Will he ensure that the working group examines the circumstances that must prevail in a number of major contracts currently in force? How will established contracts between, for example, other Government Departments and the private sector be treated in the context of the Bill, given the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East?

Tony McNulty: I agree with that to the extent that my hon. Friend's points are all the more important in respect of the transition period between the Bill becoming law and the regulations taking effect, and the tail end of any contracts that have been entered into. I fully understand the point, and we will ensure that it is considered. As I said earlier, we will try to have the widest possible representation on the working party. Unless I am mistaken, the UK Competitive Telecommunications Association, which represents many of the small telecom utilities, will be on the working group. It can deliberate on precisely these important matters when it offers input to the working group. This is almost a Grishamesque comment: it is not for me or the Bill to reflect or change contract law as part of these proceedings. As appropriate, contract
 law and contracts will have to reflect the Bill as another part of the body statute if it is enacted.
 It is also important to note that other parts of the Bill make clear the distinction between statutory duties and contractual duties for some utilities. Matters such as duties on undertakers under the Gas Act 1986 and provision for reflecting the importance of statutory duties if a direction can impact on them are covered in the Bill. It reflects the regime already in place in the 1991 Act, so I need to make that distinction between statutory and contractual duties. 
 Almost the same point applies to amendment No. 204. Proposed new subsection (3A), which is inserted by clause 42, deals with a situation in which it is principally the direction or order that prevents an undertaker from carrying out its statutory duties. That is covered in the Bill, so the amendment is not needed. 
 The amendment seeks to provide that an undertaker 
''shall be taken not to have failed to fulfil any statutory duty to afford a supply or service''
 if its failure is solely attributable to a direction. However, proposed new subsection (3A) already says clearly that the undertaker 
''shall be taken not to have failed to fulfil any statutory duty . . . to the extent''
 that the failure is attributable to the direction. That allows the extent to which the direction was responsible to be taken fully into account as appropriate, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, which I believe deals with the important thrust of the amendment. There may be reasons other than the direction for an undertaker failing to supply a service, but the clause deals with my hon. Friend's point, which is a fair one, in that the extent to which an undertaker is unable to fulfil the statutory duty principally because of the direction is taken into account in clause 42. With all those assurances, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Brian White: It was never my intention in introducing the amendment to create more work for contract lawyers by rewriting contract law.

Greg Knight: Shame.

Brian White: They have enough as it is.
 I welcome the Minister's comments, particularly about the need to keep British industry competitive, and the way that he is using the working group to try to resolve issues that, as he accepts, are valid and need to be handled sensitively in determining the way in which this section operates. I shall reflect on what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps the Minister can help me with a point that has been raised by someone who has written to me about clause 42(3), which specifies serious disruption to traffic as the ground on which the local authority may intervene and give directions about the timing of street works. That seems not to take into
 account factors such as the convenience of residents living adjacent to the road. The directions could require the work to be carried out not during the working day but at night, but the noise of pneumatic drills would be extremely inconvenient for residents living in the street. It does not usually matter if work is carried out at night on the motorway system, because any houses are further away from the work than they would be elsewhere.
 Another point concerns the economic impact of work on businesses. At present, it seems that the provision is tilted only towards the criterion of whether there will be serious disruption to traffic. I should be grateful if the Minister would expand on the reason for that. The clause significantly widens the existing provision, which provides only for the time of day to be specified, not the days. 
 Another issue is whether local authorities will be able to act unreasonably and make the contractor work on days that are not continuous or on specific days of the week, which might mean that the work force and equipment would have to be removed or laid off on other days. To what extent can the Minister allay these concerns, some of which were also raised by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East when we discussed his amendment?

Tony McNulty: I am slightly perplexed and I am sorry if I am causing confusion where there is none. The main thrust of the clause is precisely to do what, in the first example, the hon. Gentleman was lamenting was not the case at present. As he rightly said, section 56 of the 1991 Act, while able to prescribe time, cannot prescribe day. We are seeking to widen that provision as broadly as possible to include many of the factors he suggested, so that, holidays and weekends can be included, and street works do not take place, for example, close to Chelsea football club or on cup final day at Wembly, when it is finished, to avoid serious disruption.

Greg Knight: Does the Minister agree with my interpretation of the measure that day includes night?

Tony McNulty: Absolutely. One thing that we are not doing is taking out the one piece of substance in the 1991 Act, which was to control timing during the 24-hour period that we colloquially call a day, but also includes night. We are not setting that power aside and replacing it with the powers in the Bill; we are simply broadening it, but that of itself is not sufficient. Weekends and holidays must be incorporated. Sometimes, the most efficient time to carry out street works is at night if that minimises disruption and, if appropriate, the chance of offending the local populace.
 The detailed arrangements of how the directions will unfold will be set out in regulations and there will be consultation.

Christopher Chope: The Minister may have misunderstood the point that I am trying to make. My fears may be groundless, but it seems that the power to direct can be triggered only if the local authority believes that there is likely to be disruption to traffic if it is not triggered. I am asking about the situation when there may not be any threat of disruption to traffic, but there may be
 substantial annoyance and inconvenience to local residents or economic loss to local businesses. I want the Minister to spell out why the provision it is confined to the criterion of serious disruption to traffic.

Tony McNulty: The provision is confined in part to reflect the starting point of section 46 in the principal Act, and in part because we are discussing legislation that refers to traffic management and its consequences. It must be seen in the context of street works, and they must be seen in the context of the new network management duties. It is entirely proper, and not necessarily resulting from the clause or the Bill, that local authorities give due regard to noise and other factors to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
 Principally, the causes of disruption by street works with which we are most concerned are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The paragraphs state that the works 
(a) ''are likely to cause serious disruption to traffic, and'',—
 not or— 
(b) ''that the disruption would be avoided or reduced if the works were to continue to be carried out only at certain times or on certain days (or at certain times on certain days)''.
 It is entirely appropriate that local authorities can and should take account of all those other factors. Our principal concern is with traffic management, the disruption caused to the flow of traffic and its impact on the overall network management duty. 
 I am not undermining what the hon. Gentleman says about the other elements and circumstances. However, if work is wholly disruptive on the ground of noise to the point of being not only a nuisance, but worse, it should be picked up by environmental health, health and safety and other authorities. 
 In our goldfish bowl, it is easy to see the Bill existing in isolation, rather than in the wider context of all the other duties that local authorities undertake. The Bill does not say, ''Do not do it when there are football matches at a football ground, or any other sporting activity at a sporting location.'' Clearly, they cause significant traffic disruption in the first place, which would be reinforced by street works on Fulham broadway when Chelsea is playing at home and—who knows, even rarer—fielding an English player. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill covers many of his suggestions; and what it does not cover is covered elsewhere in legislation. 
 Importantly, the Bill shifts from simply timing, which is already in the 1991 Act, to days, which allows greater flexibility in direction. It takes account of the wider circumstances that are pervading the local network at that particular time. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Directions as to placing of apparatus

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in
page 20, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(ba) no additional cost would be incurred by the undertaker if the apparatus were to be placed in Street B'.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 205, in 
page 21, line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 No. 206, in 
page 21, line 9, at beginning insert 'solely'.
 No. 207, in 
page 21, line 10, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Christopher Chope: The amendment is an attempt to include a provision in the Bill that would help statutory undertakers. It would restrict the power of the traffic authority to direct the placing of apparatus if it adds cost to the undertaking. It is a reasonable amendment. Why should statutory undertakers have to pay a substantial penalty because the highway or street authority thinks that the apparatus should be placed somewhere else? Statutory undertakers do not dig up the road, lay cables or pipes where there is no need for them to do so. They certainly do not wish to lay pipes over longer distances and incur substantial additional costs because the local authority says that they should. The amendment would restrict the local authority's power to give directions when the effect of doing so would add significantly to the statutory undertaker's costs.

John Mann: I shall oppose the amendment and support the clause by dint of an example. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that the example is relevant, or I may have to eat my words.
 The example that I cite is that of Wood street in Worksop.

David Wright: Warsaw?

John Mann: Wood street has been closed for 20 years. It is in a major renovation area that has received significant funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for neighbourhood renewal, and the local population would like it to be opened. The money is available to open Wood street, much to the local population's delight, but only after the intervention of my good self, because of the problems in the intervening 20 years of the utilities digging holes and putting their apparatus in the middle of what was, is and will be Wood street.
 Some of them—for example, BT—were more than helpful in reducing their rather high price to a much lower and more appropriate price to remove their apparatus. The electricity supply companies were more than happy to remove their apparatus, taking it off Wood street and putting it on to adjoining land, so that there will be no further complications when Wood street, which forms a major junction with the A60, is reopened. 
 However, NTL was less helpful. Indeed, it was reticent to admit that it had apparatus in Wood street. It could not identify exactly where it was, although it 
 was clear to anyone walking across Wood street where it was—indeed, its initials were imprinted on the apparatus—nor could it give a price for removing the apparatus that it claimed was not there, in spite of the fact that everyone else knew that it was, because the town hall is on the corner of Wood street and uses the NTL facility for its internet access. It is a prima facie case and a good example of a street where the powers exist to enable coherent planning, for which the operator should pay the cost. 
 I seek my hon. Friend's confirmation of the relevance of my comments to the clause.

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend made some interesting points about Wood street in what one of my colleagues unkindly said was Warsaw, and we do not do Poland. My fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), asked if he meant Walsall in the west midlands, and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said Warsaw. I fully appreciate that some people do not say the ''k'' in Worksop.
 I am sad to say that everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said is irrelevant to the clause, which refers specifically to new apparatus. However, his points are pertinent to the Bill and are well made in that regard. 
 As the hon. Member for Christchurch says, amendment No. 49 qualifies the highway authority's power to direct an undertaker not to carry out work in a certain street unless following an alternative route would not impose any additional cost on the undertaker. In part, I accept the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. It goes without saying that most utility works need to take place in a certain location, especially when they are to maintain existing apparatus. However, when new apparatus is being installed, there may sometimes be several different routes that could be followed, and following one of those routes might cause much more disruption than following another. In such a case, we believe that it would be sensible to allow an authority to direct the undertaker not to follow the most disruptive of those routes. 
 There is no inherent reason why following an alternative route would impose greater costs on utilities. It would depend on the circumstances of each case. There might be greater costs, but they are not inherent. It must be borne in mind that following the alternative route should cause less disruption and hence mean lower costs for road users, other businesses and perhaps local residents. Against that, I accept that it would not be reasonable to impose significant extra costs on those carrying out the works. Clearly, a proper balance needs to be struck when setting out the detailed arrangements for the powers in guidance and regulations. When consulting authorities and utilities on the matter, we will want to consider costs and the question of how undertakers could appeal or seek adjudication in the case of directions that they perceive to be unjust. 
 With the introduction of new apparatus, we can see circumstances in which there will be a range of 
 options. Very often, of course, the location will be almost pre-determined.

John Mann: The Minister generously said that my case study was irrelevant. Having reread the clause, I think that he is wrong about that. I shall give a separate example. If there were a new housing development that had planning consent to expand, would the powers and the definition of ''likely to cause disruption'' relate to future developments rather than to the existing infrastructure? That is the point that I was trying to make—perhaps rather badly—in relation to Walsall. In other words, is a future or potential use of a piece of land sufficient for the purposes of the criteria? Or could a utility dump its apparatus in what would become, under the local plan, the entrance to a brand new estate?

Tony McNulty: I take the point. I think that the answer is that as and when what currently exists underneath Wood street in Walsall becomes an impediment to the introduction of new apparatus, the provisions will apply. We cannot legislate for something that may happen some time down the line in those local circumstances. Given the gateway nature, as my hon. Friend described it, of Wood street, it may be appropriate to lay a central core of new apparatus, and have bits leading off to the new development. If the underlying apparatus is an impediment to that, or if we are talking about the least disruptive or more disruptive route, his point has a bearing. In the broader sense, the points that he made about Wood street are entirely appropriate to the Bill; it is just that talking about the existence of old apparatus underneath the ground is not germane to the clause, which refers specifically to new apparatus.

John Mann: If the example involved the provision of gas to an area and there were two options available to a local authority, one of which fitted with its local plan and involved routing gas supplies so that they could be expanded to a new estate—I have a specific example in my area in mind—would the clause give the authority the power to instruct the utility to put the gas supply in place A rather than place B solely on the grounds of the potential for future development?

Tony McNulty: The authority would certainly be in a far stronger position when it came to indicating that that is what it would like to see prevail. However, the existence of such proposed developments in the local plan—they would therefore come under planning law—might not be enough in itself. The clause is about saying that the least disruptive route for new apparatus—and it may well be because it is in the local plan and is implied new development—will prevail, strengthened by the local plan. However, there could then be a clash between the Bill, when enacted, and planning legislation. The existence in the plan of some potential future development would not of itself be enough, but it may well come into play if it is—as my hon. Friend describes—the least disruptive and most sensible way to put the new apparatus in place.

Greg Knight: Is not the hon. Member for Bassetlaw making rather heavy weather of this? I do not think that he has adduced any argument against the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. His difficulty appears to
 be with a company called NTL, which denied that it had property in a particular street. As, under our law, one cannot be convicted of stealing, or causing criminal damage to property that is abandoned, why does the hon. Gentleman not lead a resident's revolt, take over the property owned by NTL, and destroy it?

Tony McNulty: That contribution clearly shows the value of having lawyers on our Committees. It is an interesting point, but none the less, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw says is important, certainly in local terms. Where the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is wrong is that it must be the case that a local authority can direct, when a utility insists on taking the most disruptive route for the laying of new apparatus. I am sure that we will reach a position in the regulations where some process is established whereby there can be further discussion on the detail of that, but as we would all agree, in most circumstances there will be a direct route, and it will be clear that there is only that route and no other. However, there will be circumstances where there is a range of options for the laying of apparatus, and it must be appropriate for the local authority to be able to serve direction where the most disruptive avenue is chosen.
 As for amendments Nos. 205 and 207, have we not been there? We are talking about ''may'' versus ''must'', and the points that I made earlier remain valid. In terms of the law, if we use ''must'' we will not issue regulations or guidance until everything possible is included in the guidance. ''May'' will give us flexibility to come to some broad agreement on what all sides concur is important. The current ''Code of practice for the co-ordination of street works and works for road purposes'' gives guidance on the existing power for authorities to direct utilities as to when they can carry out works—[Interruption.] I thought I heard the Committee leaving then, until I looked up. We envisage expanding the code to give further guidance on the use of the power to give directions in relation to both the timing and locations of works. 
 We also expect to issue regulations covering appeal arrangements, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross suggested, after consulting authorities and utilities. Having said that, we still feel that it is sensible to retain some flexibility, leading us to have ''may'' rather than ''must''. 
 We will be bringing forward an amendment in the form of new clause 11, after part 7 of the Bill, which will allow the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice covering the inspection of utilities' street works to make sure that they are carried out properly, and highway authorities will have to take account of that. I wanted to flag that up for the Committee as this is the appropriate point in the Bill to do so, although we will return to the matter when we come to new clause 11.

Christopher Chope: When will that be?

Tony McNulty: After we have considered part 7. It is the only Government new clause, and is already tabled.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has misunderstood my question. I was asking when the guidance will be issued, not when will we be debating the new clause.

Tony McNulty: The guidance will be issued in due course. We will certainly not issue guidance before we have secured the new clause that is relevant to it. I do apologise. I did seriously think that the hon. Gentleman thought that the new clause was not yet published and was asking when it would be debated. I apologise for that.
 Amendment No. 206 would provide that an undertaker should not be taken to have failed to fulfil a statutory duty to supply a service if that failure is solely attributable to a direction relating to the place and apparatus. We discussed that under amendment No. 204. The arguments that were advanced did not give me any reason not to resist the amendment, and the same situation prevails in relation to amendment No. 206. In the light of that serious debate, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Christopher Chope: On that basis, and given that we shall have time to debate new clause 11 in due course, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - The Street works register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Brian White: I want briefly to bring a point to the Minister's attention. One of the concerns that a number of utilities have with the register relates to road works and the Highways Agency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made a point about the Highways Agency's own works being included. How will it ensure that its planning ties in with the local authorities' works? Given that the Highways Agency plans cross the country, it must ensure that its schemes tie in with those of a number of authorities. We need to ensure that the central register enables sharing between different authorities so that the utilities can plan taking those authorities into account, and many would argue that there should be an electronic register. The issue of data sharing is key. Will the Minister ensure that these data protection and data sharing issues are addressed?

John Mann: The clause gives the opportunity to raise a potential weakness in the Bill, which relates to unadopted roads. I seek the Minister's advice on the matter, and perhaps he will send it in writing as there is such a wide array of expertise available on the issue.
 Will unadopted roads be covered by the clause? In my constituency there are problems with two sorts of unadopted roads. Some are lined by recently built houses—though some of the disputes in these cases go back 15 years—and I shall come back to those later if I have the opportunity. The other example is perhaps more pertinent. I cite the example of Mill street in Worksop, which is an unadopted road where there is 
 an ongoing dispute about whether it should be adopted. The highways authority allegedly laid down tarmacadam 20 years ago and there is a dispute about whether that makes it an adopted road, or whether it should be adopted because of that. 
 I can see a number of complications relating to Mill street tied up in the legislation. It may help to resolve the problem and get the thing adopted and tarmacked, which it should be anyway. How do unadopted roads fit with the clause? On the issue of older unadopted roads, are the Government not missing an opportunity to put responsibility on local authorities under the Bill to adopt roads that have existed for a significant period into which utilities have been placed so that oddities throughout the country, such as Mill street, get the same service as the rest of us?

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister give us some assurance that the amendment to the street works register requirement is not going to cover too much trivial and bureaucratic nonsense? Clause 44, as drafted, could put an obligation on a street authority to put on a register every pile of building material, rubbish or other things deposited on the highway, even though it might be there for a relatively short time. If we start requiring local authorities to do that, we are putting a disproportionate burden on them.
 I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance about the circumstances in which the duties will arise and an assurance that they are not going to cover those deposits that are not on the ground for very long. In some parts of the country rubbish is tipped and it takes a long time to have it cleared away. In the street where I live, in Lambeth, a car has been abandoned for several days and not removed. The idea that Lambeth council, which is a failing or failed council, should be required to put that on a register is as ludicrous as requiring the registration of skips that are there for a short time. I would be grateful for some assurances on that.

Tony McNulty: I am perplexed. I am trying to understand what an abandoned car has to do with street works and why it should be on a register.

Christopher Chope: It blocks the highway.

Tony McNulty: Trivial bureaucratic nonsense was largely the domain of the last Administration. Nothing that this Government do, in any way, shape or form, is trivial, bureaucratic or nonsense.
 The register can be limited by regulation, so rubbish will not, I suspect, be included. If the disruption or its cause is gone, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, by the time it has gone through the bureaucracy of getting registered, that is clearly not the thrust of the Bill at all.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: No, I can't be bothered at the moment, because I have said nothing of any importance. We could come back to the hon. Gentleman a bit later—I do not mean to be flippant.
 The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw makes about unadopted road is an entirely fair one. As I read it, we are talking specifically about requiring street authorities to keep a register showing 
 with respect to each street for which they are responsible such information as may be prescribed. As I understand it, local authorities are not responsible for unadopted road—so his is a fair point that, with his indulgence, I shall have to explore further and get back to him on. It is a point well made. I have heard before of such difficulties. The classic unadopted road is posh people who live up some avenue and do not have anything to do with the council. I am being London-centric in that regard.

Brian White: When my hon. Friend looks at unadopted roads, can he ensure that bodies such as English Partnerships, which has a number of roads around the country that have yet to be adopted, are reminded of its importance?

Tony McNulty: At the risk, as Ernie Bevin once said, of opening a Pandora's box and watching a Trojan horse jump out, I will do that. The general point about unadopted roads is an entirely fair one that, if only for my own satisfaction, is worthy of exploration.
 The principle of the streets works register is in clause 53 of the principal Bill. In the main, clause 44 simply seeks to broaden that slightly. At present, registers have to contain, among other things, information on utilities' street works being carried out on those roads as well as the authority's own road works. The clause will allow the regulations to require that other information also be kept, notably about skips and scaffolding, which were not covered by the 1991 Act, and the position of apparatus buried beneath the roads. 
 The clause also clarifies that central registers can be set up to contain information on more than one authority area and that the Secretary of State may require authorities to provide information on their streets to the person operating the central register. I pray in aid and commend to hon. Members, if they get a chance, to look at the London works scheme by Transport for London, which is working with the London boroughs towards a system for its own roads by which it can know exactly what is happening on every road and street in London. That is the absolute aim. At present, the system covers its own network, not necessarily the wider network that might prevail if the relevant part of the Bill gets through. TfL plans to get to the stage at which it can link that information base to its CCTV operation in order to keep the flow of traffic moving and, if it so chooses, to send in some of its officers to unblock blockages in the system that can be clearly seen, or to deal with someone who is overrunning on street works or with some short-term disruptions. The scheme works terribly well, and more and more London boroughs are signing up to work with TfL on it. It is a very good example of a central register that will work well for all concerned. 
 Again, at the risk of sounding parrot-like, we shall work with local authorities and utilities to see how the central register can be implemented; how, as hon. Members have suggested, we can deploy technology in that regard—it is absolutely at the core of the London works scheme; and how we must factor in the planning of works. In reinforcing and enhancing the elements of the street works register in the principal 1991 Act, this clause will help rather than hinder all who are involved 
 in street works: utilities, other contractors and local authorities. People will find it worth while to visit Transport for London to discuss in detail the data that is now sitting in its central register.

Christopher Chope: The Minister did not want to deal with rubbish. I did not introduce the concept of rubbish—it is in the Bill. If he wishes to introduce an amendment on Report to exclude rubbish, or other things deposited, from the provisions of clause 44, it will certainly be supported warmly on this side of the Committee, because our concern is that the Bill should not be disproportionate. If we start requiring authorities to record rubbish on the streets, we are putting the cart before the horse. Would not it be better to require them to remove the rubbish first?

Tony McNulty: In terms of requirements to remove rubbish, that is not the purpose of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows fine well—this will come out in discussion of the regulations—that many contractors will use the street or road as a permanent or at least temporary dump for their building materials or rubbish, for the duration of their work. As such, it is entirely appropriate to include that element as well as skips in the Bill.
 I was referring to what I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to: his suggestion that the authority should not have to register rubbish that will probably be cleared up then and there or by the end of the working day, then come back and say that it is gone, so it does not matter. There are examples throughout London of sites that effectively become a builder's yard for the duration of the contractor's work. That cannot be right or appropriate either for the local authority's maintaining its ability to fulfil its network management duty or for the efficient use of the public street or road. 
 Generally, street works must be done on positive terms. Contractors must work with everyone else who needs to use the road, rather than simply taking the road as a gift for the duration of their works. That happens rarely, but to the extent that it happens in London, which is principally what I have been talking about, it can be entirely disruptive. As a suggestion for inclusion in the register, it is right and proper, but the black bag that will not be there by the end of the day or the week is not. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Duties relating to the location

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The clause amends section 80 of the 1991 Act, but section 80 has never been activated, being regarded apparently as too rigid and burdensome. The clause aims to develop a practical and effective regime that is not too burdensome on
 operators. The Government have had more than 10 years in which to cogitate on the provision, so will the Minister share with us some of the ideas that might be proposed in regulations to express that practical and effective regime?

Tony McNulty: I shall not rise to the notion that we have somehow had 10 years to deliberate and cogitate on the provision. Of course we have not. The time from 1991 to half of 1997 was not in our gift as the Government of the day; it was in the gift of the hon. Gentleman's party. He is right to say that it has never been activated for fear of placing an excessive burden on the person who finds the apparatus, given that the fact that it was not properly recorded in the first place is not their fault.
 Instead, the clause allows, with modification, for regulations to be made that set out the action that someone finding such apparatus needs to take. It also allows the Secretary of State to set up, or appoint someone to set up, a central register of apparatus in the road, whose owners are unknown. If there were an opportunity afforded by the opening of a road or street to identify some of the apparatus underneath, it would be foolish not to do so. Since 1991, there has been an explosion in the number of utilities that can dig up the roads. 
 I am always astonished at the time and energy such work costs private and public contractors. They consult maps and anticipate undertakings under the road in certain locations because things have not been dealt with or the road has not been breached for so long; but there has been some movement under the road, and apparatus has moved 5, 10 or 15 ft and is well away from the location in which the undertaker believed it to be. 
 It is right and sensible to set up a practical regulatory regime in consultation with undertakers, authorities and others, that balances the need to ensure that all apparatus under the street is accurately recorded with not placing an unfair burden on the ''innocent'' persons carrying out the work. They are not responsible for what they find under the road, but as and when they find apparatus, it seems logical to mark it and inform whoever keeps the register. 
 We have already agreed with the utilities that it is a good idea to put the details in the regulations. We will discuss with them and local authorities how that should be done. Rather than starting from the premise that section 80 of the 1991 Act has not been activated and that we therefore do not need it, we believe that it can be suitably modified in full discussion with utilities and local authorities. 
 We can mark and record undertakings that are found when roads are opened, recording not simply that their existence—I hope that we know what is there—but their location, should they have shifted. In London, given the shifting sands on which this glorious and wonderful city is built, that happens on numerous occasions and not only in parts where there is porous earth. 
 The provision is not another stick with which to beat the utilities, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. It is the common-sense notion of taking forward a provision that was not activated from the 1991 Act to reach a stage where the location of apparatus is recorded for the benefit of the utilities and all who seek to do street work and for those who are responsible for the maintenance of the main highways. That must make sense and I do not understand the complaint. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Duty to inspect records

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: What requirements are to be laid down in relation to the availability of records? If the records are kept on a computer that can be interrogated at all hours of the day and night, that is one thing, but if the only way to gain access to them is to go down to the local authority when it is open between 9.30 am and 4.30 pm, that is a major restriction and inhibition on an entrepreneurial contractor's ability to take effective action.
 We know that issues arising under this part of the Bill will often arise at short notice, at weekends, in the evenings, late at night or in the early hours of the morning. Can the Minister give us some idea of the requirements that will be placed on local authorities to ensure that the records are available to be inspected? That must surely be the fair corollary of the duty to be placed on statutory undertakers to inspect the records.

Tony McNulty: That is entirely fair and is the thrust not only of the clause but of the regulations that will stand behind it. We want the duty to fit with the new provision in clause 46, which is intended to make it easier for different undertakers to exchange information on their apparatus in the street and to have full regard for it.
 Section 79 of the 1991 Act deals with access to records. Section 73(3) says that an undertaker must keep them available at reasonable hours and free of charge. The clause builds on that. The elements of the Bill will be dealt with in detail in regulations, after full consultation with utilities and local authorities.

Andrew Miller: There are some exceptions in the publicly mapped data. For example, in my area significant parts of the Government's own pipeline network are not held in the public domain, which could cause problems if emergency works are needed. Therefore, some aspects will have to be dealt with outside of an open computer system and covered by security provisions.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt that. I am sure that local authorities and the utilities are fully aware of that matter, which we will need to take full cognisance of when we draft the regulations. It is an entirely fair point. I accept that there will be exceptions to the notion that we should have full and open access to everything under our roads.

Greg Knight: In a rather throw-away line the Minister said that the provisions build on the existing position, where the records are available free of charge. Can he clarify the use of the word ''build''? I hope that it does not mean that charges will be introduced in future. The clause refers to making regulations. Does the Minister take the view that access to the records should still be free of charge to those who need to inspect them?
 On the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in the light of the Government's stated intention to provide more and more information on the internet, why could this information not be on an intranet, to which those authorised to carry out the work could have access? They would then not have to send an employee to the council offices to start looking through pieces of paper, but could delegate a member of staff in their own office to go on to the intranet and find out the information much more quickly, efficiently and cheaply?

Tony McNulty: I take the point about an intranet for the utilities and local government on a nationwide basis. That may be worth exploring, but it is something for the local authorities and the utilities to explore rather than the Bill. I repeat what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
 Save for updating matters relating to the changes made over the last 12 years, we are not changing what the 1991 Act says about sensitive equipment under our roads. Existing regulations make provision for sensitive equipment, although we may well need to update that because, as I think everyone accepts, there have been considerable changes between 1991 and 2004 to who can access our roads and what has been done under them. The points about having as much access as possible and about retaining the free-of-charge position will be explored in regulations. I hope that we reach the stage at which that can prevail, because the mutual exchange of the records and information must, by definition, benefit both the local authority and the utility about to undertake operations. There may simply be a minor administrative charge to cover the cost of retaining access to those records—as currently prevails under the existing Act, I hasten to add. However, the notion that we are talking about a commercial exchange for which there ought to be a fee should be broadly resisted. Given the mutuality in the process, I think that, when we come to consider the matter in relation to the regulations, what I described will prevail in future as well. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Qualifications of supervisors and operatives

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: To what extent has the clause been the subject of discussion between local authorities and the
 utilities? It appears that there is not much reciprocity. All the burden is on the utilities—the statutory undertakers—to identify people who are named and suitably qualified. However, we all know from our experience that often one of the problems when dealing with local authorities is finding somebody at his desk, by his telephone or at his laptop who is prepared to accept responsibility for answering a question. Even if one discovers the identity of that person, it is often quite difficult to get them to phone back. When he makes the regulations, perhaps the Minister will give regard to the need for reciprocity in the exchanges of names and addresses.

Tony McNulty: In the wider context of the Bill, that is something that can be considered. However, all the clause does is to build on what section 67 of the principal Act says about the qualifications of supervisors and operatives. Of course there is no reciprocity, because the clause refers to the supervisors and operatives of the undertakers. The hon. Gentleman's point concerns the wider Bill rather than the clause. We think that section 67, which the clause amends, is not as tight as it should be on the qualifications of supervisors and operatives. The hon. Gentleman's comments are entirely inappropriate, but may have some relevance in the wider context.
 I do not like the language and I find it terribly unhelpful. We should not talk about reciprocity as though we face a them-against-us situation or a conflict, where everything that the local authority does or seeks to do is an imposition on the utilities, which are constantly trying to break free from the yoke of oppression imposed by local authorities. That is fatuous nonsense that we do not need to discuss now, or indeed in connection with anything in the Bill, which starts from the premise of broad support across all parties and is not partisan. The ideological haze in which the hon. Gentleman sometimes conducts himself is terribly unhelpful. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Works following substantial road works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps the Minister could give us some information about the clause.

Tony McNulty: I am not having this, David.
Mr. Wilshire indicated dissent.

Christopher Chope: I do not know whether the Minister is saying that it is unreasonable for us to ask him questions.

Tony McNulty: I am not talking to you.

Nigel Beard: Order.

Christopher Chope: The Minister is obviously not interested in the principle of reciprocity. I was going to try to heal any wounds by talking about a global partnership, but that may not be appropriate either.
 The clause allows the street authority to increase a one-year embargo. There is concern about the length of notice given for that embargo, the maximum period of the embargo, the effect that such an embargo could have on ordinary residents and businesses whose circumstances have changed and who want access to utilities that are unavailable, and what will happen then. I understand that the existing embargo is limited to a period of one year, which the Government believe to be too short. If the period is to be longer, the Government should be prepared to tell us. After all, we are discussing important primary legislation.

Tony McNulty: All this clause does is modify section 58 of the 1991 Act—the principal Act. We are not suggesting that a year is too long or too short: we are simply saying that in the interests of having as much flexibility as possible, we require the power to set a maximum period in regulation, and that regulations prescribe how disputes between authorities and undertakers over restrictions on work should be settled, which section 58 does not do. In both regards, the clause enhances and consolidates the 1991 Act. Yes, these are important matters, but they can and should be dealt with by regulation to reflect the flexibility and responsiveness between the local authority and the utilities that is greater than the rather rigid ''one year and that's your lot'' of the 1991 Act. In that regard, the clause is eminently reasonable.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Schedule 3a to the New Roads and

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I refer to page 62 of the Bill. Why is the copy of the notice that must be given restricted under paragraph 2(4) to the sewer authority rather than to other equivalent authorities?
 Paragraph 2(4)(e) states: 
''any person who has apparatus in that part of the highway''.
 How will it be possible in all circumstances to identify the person who has apparatus in that part of the highway? 
 Paragraph 2(6) states that 
''Section 55 does not apply where, by virtue of a notice under this section, a person is required to notify the street authority of proposed street works.''
 Will the Minister explain the thinking behind that? This is quite serious. I know that the Minister is keen to make progress, as I am. However, we are talking about regulations that create criminal offences, and as a conscientious Committee, the least that we can do is to ask a few questions about them. In that context, I ask the Minister to explain why, in paragraph 4(7) of the schedule, a direction 
''shall cease to have effect if the works referred to in paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) to which it relates are not completed within such period as may be prescribed.''
 I did not understand that and wondered whether other hon. Members understood it, so I ask the Minister to enlighten the Committee.

Tony McNulty: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to worry about the progress that I am making. We are in control of that, and will make progress as we see fit—whether the hon. Gentleman is with us is a matter for him.
 The schedule is important—it discusses restrictions on works following substantial street works and nothing in it is otiose or over the top. The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers mainly relate to the 1991 Act, and are clearly laid out. If the hon. Gentleman slows down a bit, I am sure that he will follow them clearly. In addition to the persons listed in paragraph 2(4)(a) to (e). Paragraph 4(f) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe any person in that regard. An authority will know which utilities have apparatus in a particular street, as it can inspect the records of any utility active in the area, as we have just discussed. 
 There are, and always have been, peculiarities in the law governing public sewers, because of the nature of public sewers. Any person who has apparatus in that part of a highway needs to be fully notified—that is a matter of fairness. The direction restricting further works is entirely appropriate, as laid out in the schedule. 
 As ever, the schedule should to be seen not in isolation—that is playing silly little word games—but in the context of all the prevailing clauses in part 4. It is easy to pull out little words and little paragraphs, but they should be related first to the changes that we have made in part 4 of the Bill, and secondly to the relevant sections of the 1991 Act. I have sought to do that as we have considered the clauses. Everything in the schedule is entirely appropriate, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee will agree. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to. 
 Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Power of street authority to

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in
page 26, line 27, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.
 The amendment, as the Minister would expect, is a reasonable one. It would ensure that an action that is not reasonable would not be contemplated. I hope that it commends itself to him.

Brian White: One thing that annoys people about reinstatement is the impact on pedestrians and cyclists, so the addition of the powers is useful. Will the Minister ensure that, as the regulations are drafted, the impact on cyclists and pedestrians is taken into account as much as the impact on traffic?

John Mann: My concern relates to the position of local authorities, and the danger that they may be tempted to try to pass on some of the costs that they should meet, because the opportunity arises to do so. One of the problems that the clause may face is the success of the Government's economic policy, and the fact that there is a general labour shortage in many areas. It strikes me, therefore, that in trying to get competing jobs done by a local authority and the private sector, the pressure to pass on some costs from the local authority to the private contractor will become all the more appealing. What reassurance can the Minister give that that will not be allowed, and that there will be some ability for a private company to protest and get independent validation if there is any suggestion of a local authority attempting to do so?

Tony McNulty: Amendment No. 203 is totally unnecessary. New section 73A (3) already provides for regulations to limit the extent of resurfacing, and authorities will be constrained by regulations as to what they can require of undertakers.
 Regarding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, we have agreed that the authorities and utilities should be consulted separately and jointly so that what he suggests does not prevail. 
 Putting in the ''reasonably'' asked for in amendment No. 203 would add absolutely nothing to this clause. It is already alluded to in section 73A (3) and will be dealt with in substance in regulations.

Christopher Chope: In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 191, in
page 27, line 9, at end insert— 
 '(6A) A resurfacing notice— 
 (a) shall not have effect for more than three years from the date of its issue; and 
 (b) shall not cause a contingent liability to be held in the balance-sheet of an undertaker for more than two financial reporting years.'.
 The amendment deals with a small but important technical point. Clause 53 will insert three new sections on resurfacing into the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and I have no problem with the principles of resurfacing. However, we should consider new section 73D(2)(d), which is contained in clause 54 and deals with regulations relating to new sections 73A to 73C. That prescribes 
''circumstances in which an undertaker is entitled to pay a sum to the street authority instead of executing the works''.
 In clause 55, subsections (1) and (2) of new section 78A detail the conditions in which an apportionment may be made. 
 The amendment is designed to address those provisions' effect of creating a contingent liability. When undertakers elect to pay a sum rather than undertake the works—as I suspect many will do—and when that sum or its apportionment will be contingent on other works at a later stage, it is possible that a liability will accrue, which will have to be accounted for in the books of the undertaker. Under the Bill, that situation could go on indefinitely. Considering the helpful briefing that I received from officials, I am sure that the Government's intention is to include at some point a reasonable time limit on notices. 
 Amendment No. 191 would provide for a three-year limit, so that the liability would drop after three years. The reference to the undertaker's balance sheet coincides with three years, since having two balance sheet dates would take out the contingent liability. As I said, the amendment is small and technical, but it is by no means unimportant. The current provisions could result in a mass of complicated accounting, and a reasonable cut-off point—three years seems reasonable—could clear it up to some extent. 
 That is a brief explanation of what the amendment is designed to do. I hasten to add that I do not want to press it, but I would be grateful to know the Government's thinking and how they intend to deal with the matter.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman's points are fair, but they would be dealt with more appropriately in regulations. Time scales for authorities to serve utilities with surfacing noticing will be a matter for regulations, on which we shall consult fully with undertakers and authorities on a range of issues. The point about the time scales has been well made, but regulations should create certainty for utilities about any contingent liabilities that the clause might create.
 If there were time, I would try to find an accounting novelist to match John Grisham and wax lyrical about how it is not our job in the Bill to impinge on accounting regulations or any other relevant developments, or on what utilities or contractors do on their balance sheets or in their internal and external accounting, but we do not have time, so I shall not. Instead, I shall simply say that we will tackle the hon. Gentleman's fair point about time scales in regulations after consultation with local authorities and utilities. That will capture the hon. Gentleman's fair points about contingent liabilities and time scales. As such, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

John Thurso: I accept that using regulations is a way of dealing with the point, but what sort of time scale do the Government have in mind as being reasonable? Would three years, five years or seven years be reasonable? What is their thinking at this stage?

Tony McNulty: At this stage, I would not care to hazard a guess. It may be one year or two years rather than three. The hon. Gentleman's point, which was entirely fair, about carrying the liability around for ever was well made and I assure him that it will be dealt with through consultation and in regulations rather than in the way that he suggested.

John Thurso: In the light of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The Minister knows, and it is apparent, that there is a lot of mutual suspicion about the clause and the provisions relating to reinstatement. Some utilities are fearful that they will be required to pick up the bill for the failure of highway authorities to maintain their roads properly. The Minister said that that would be dealt with in regulations. The tension is recognised on page 29 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states, under the heading ''Balance of costs and benefits'', that
''the exact balance of costs and benefits will depend upon the framing of the regulations''
 which will bring this new measure into force. 
 I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he sees any scope for a new type of pre-legislative scrutiny. We usually talk of pre-legislative scrutiny in the context of a Select Committee considering a draft Bill for primary legislation. This is not the only example in the Bill because, throughout it, runs a mass of proposals for detailed regulations, many of which will come before us for affirmative resolution. Or, if we pray against them, we may have a chance of a one-and-a-half-hour debate. None of the regulations will be able to be amended and that is not scrutiny as Parliament understands it. 
 Having regard to the concern that has been expressed by the Chairman of the Select Committee and many other people, I wonder whether the Minister sees any scope for submitting some of the draft regulations, after they have been subject to a great deal of consultation with the interested parties, to the Select Committee for a short period before they are considered by the House of Commons.

David Jamieson: I am thinking about it.

Christopher Chope: I am pleased that the Under-Secretary is thinking about it because this is not a contentious Standing Committee, as has been apparent from the smooth way in which it has proceeded, but underlying that is much anxiety. At the moment, the utilities and local authorities can have negotiations and areas of dispute could remain. That can be dealt with by Ministers, but I think that it is the wish of the House of Commons to have more scrutiny of the whole area than will be possible if we proceed as it looks as though we will—by trusting everything, and saying that it will all be dealt with and that there will be a regulatory impact assessment and so on.
 I do not know whether the Ministers attended the recent seminar on regulatory impact assessments, but I am sure that they have been bombarded with circulars on the subject because the Government are rightly concerned about RIAs. They are not much use if they are not linked with proper parliamentary scrutiny. I see that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East agrees with me. I would have thought that the 
 whole subject would lend itself to the sort of scrutiny that I have been discussing. I have not discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Select Committee, but, having regard to her comments and desire to exercise more pre-legislative scrutiny before Second Reading, I am sure that she would be enthusiastic about the prospect of her Committee getting down to some of the detail. 
 I use the opportunity of our debating a contentious area of the Bill—namely, reinstatements—to ask the Minister about the possibility of that sort of additional scrutiny. If he wants to think about it, or discuss it with his colleagues, I shall understand that he will not be able to reply fully. However, I put it on record as a way forward.

Tony McNulty: I have already said that, after full consultation with the local authorities and utilities and once we have the draft regulations, I am more than happy that some scope should be afforded to members of the Committee to explore the regulations in far greater detail. Indeed, once the local government side has been fully consulted, I can foresee even wider consultation, beyond the Committee.
 To be entirely fair, in the first instance the Select Committee was considering pre-legislative scrutiny of the entire Bill, not only of the regulations, so I am not sure whether that is an appropriate avenue. I do not know whether the august Chair of that Committee would welcome detailed scrutiny of regulations, similar to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill to which she alluded. However, I shall reflect on the matter. It is certainly right and proper that we engage with the entire Committee, and even, as we did at the start of the Bill, afford time for other hon. Members to go through the draft regulations with departmental officials. 
 We want to get the regulations right before they go through the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. In the context of what I have already said about sharing draft regulations with the members of the Committee, perhaps affording them the chance to go through the draft regulations with officials before they come before Parliament, I am more than happy for there to be greater scrutiny. 
 I am not entirely sure whether it needs to go formally through the Select Committee, but I will reflect on it. However, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I want the greatest consultation and scrutiny on and of the regulations. I want them to be dealt with properly; and when they are put into effect, I want them to be of practical advantage to the utilities and local authorities. That is what we seek from the entire Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Re-surfacing regulations and guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Mann: I have one question. Proposed new section 73D(2)(d) provides for the paying of sums of money in lieu of executing works. I wonder whether that will operate like the adoption of roads on new estates, which are usually rather unsatisfactory works.
 My area has seen a series of disputes between builders and the highway authority over the works to be completed before the roads are adopted. Both parties seem to be satisfied that there is a sum of money on deposit, but they have not bothered to do anything about getting them adopted—or, in the most extreme case of Scrooby close, not completing them for 15 years. Several dozen other, similar, examples are current.

Tony McNulty: In the first instance, the clause does not relate to the initial surfacing of roads on new estates, but only to those roads when they are dug up and subsequently resurfaced. That is when the cost of resurfacing and the other elements of clauses 53 to 55 would prevail. It would not apply to the initial making up and surfacing of new roads.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 - Orders of the Greater London Authority changing what are strategic roads

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in
page 31, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
 The reason for the amendment is simple. We believe in the widest possible democratic accountability. The effect of the amendment would be to remove subsection (6), which states: 
''The functions of the Greater London Authority under this section are functions exercisable by the Mayor acting on its behalf.''
 When we are framing law, we need to take account of all eventualities. Some of us take the view that the present Mayor of London is not as even handed or fair minded as we might hope when it comes to transport issues in London. Indeed, I think that, if he had his way, the Mayor would pave over the whole of the capital apart from rail lines and bus lanes. Therefore, we believe that the Greater London authority, rather than the Mayor acting alone, should be able to exercise the functions.

Tony McNulty: That is a misreading of the clause. It simply mentions the functions exercised by the Mayor acting on behalf of the GLA. That reflects the constitutional settlement that follows the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and is not germane to this or any other specific mayor. The Bill needs to reflect the law that exists. It the hon. Gentleman wants to amend the principles in the GLA Act in terms of the constitutional settlement therein, he is free to do so, but the Bill is not the appropriate mechanism.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. My conclusion is that the best way forward is to change the Mayor, which we shall seek
 to do at the next mayoral election. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps the Minister will explain more about the Government's thinking on the clause. There is much concern among London boroughs that they could find roads that they regard as their local roads being taken away from them and transferred to the Mayor and Transport for London, without their consent. As somebody who served in local government when we had a Greater London council, I remember vividly the tension between the residents of Wandsworth and the GLC when the GLC tried to interfere with local highways.
 We have a set of strategic roads, which were put together in the context of the establishment of the GLA, the detrunking of roads and the transfer from the Highways Agency to the GLA. We also have red routes, which are working effectively, although even they were a cause of tension between the traffic director and the boroughs. If the Government have it in mind to allow the Mayor to put in a bid to take over large areas of the highways that have traditionally been the responsibility of the elected borough, now is the time to be clear about that. We shall see what the reaction will be. London authorities are not alert to the danger posed, probably because the Government have not made a policy announcement. I hope that the Minister will make a short announcement about his intentions today.

Tony McNulty: The London boroughs are fully aware of our intentions, not least because they will have read the Bill with interest, but because I ensured, through the Association of London Government, that they knew exactly what would happen. In my capacity as the Minister for London transport, I have dealt extensively with the Association of London Government and Transport for London. I have about four or five meetings a month with TfL on various subjects, ranging from the tube to a particular roads group.
 The Mayor is not, as the hon. Gentleman implied, involved in an elaborate land grab, roughly equivalent to Poland, when it comes to taking over control of roads. By common consent, there are significant highways in London that should be in the TfL network, purely so that it can achieve the network management duty that we will afford it if the Bill is enacted. That is not a case of taking control of roads in perpetuity or expanding the current TfL network. Roads of significant strategic concern will simply be added to the network so that TfL can carry out its statutory duty.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister tell me why, under the clause, if the Mayor wants to nominate a road as being strategic, the council for the London borough in which the road is situated has to give consent? If, however, under subsection (4), the Mayor wants to reclassify a road as no longer strategic, he does not need consent.

Tony McNulty: First, we found it better to proceed by consensus, but there must be the backstop that the Secretary of State reserves the right to preserve the integrity of the strategic network. An authority may want to remove a road from the network when it should be left in. Ideally, with consent is the most appropriate way to proceed. I am sorry but I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's second point.

Greg Knight: I understand why it is better to proceed by consent, and I welcome the fact that the council for the London borough in which the road is situated will be approached and its consent sought. If the council withholds its consent, the matter will pass to the Minister who will decide who is being unreasonable. However, if the argument for consent is valid for subsection (3), why can the Mayor declassify a road under subsection (4) without any consent? Is that a defect in the clause?

Tony McNulty: I do not think so because there would be no dispute in a case of a road resorting back to the borough as the principal highway authority. The local authority would be more than happy to take over control of the road by agreement. It would not be done by diktat; there would need to be discussions in the first instance.
 To return to the principal point, significant parts of Edgware road, a major thoroughfare for public transport and other traffic, are not in the strategic network. For the purpose of TfL's network management duty, they should be. The stretch from Paddington to the M25 is not in the curtilage of the strategic network and clearly should be. 
 That is literally from Paddington to the M25. It is not within the curtilage of the strategic network. Clearly it should be, as a major road. 
 The A40 from Kingsway out to Uxbridge road is not part of the network, and again is a major thoroughfare. If we are to afford TfL its network management duty for the overarching strategic network for which it has powers, we do need to look at other roads—there will not be that many—that enhance that network and allow it to carry out its role properly. It is about looking at what currently prevails, and saying that if it is right and proper that TfL, as one of the highway authorities in London, should have the network management duty as well, we must equip it with the necessary network for it to be able to keep traffic flowing around that entire network, as in clause 16. 
 It is a matter of public debate, and has been since the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but I would say that there is a wider network of roads that TfL would dearly love to include as its own, rather than their being managed at borough level. That has been resisted by the boroughs, and this is not a device to get that new network in through the back door. I emphasise that there is already provision under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 for the overall TfL network to be revisited, and for the purposes of this Bill there are elements that are simply not in TfL's network that must be included in it to enable it to achieve its network management duty. If we afford 
 TfL this statutory duty, we need to give it the ability to fulfil that duty to the broadest extent. It is an appropriate reflection of how the Traffic Management Bill will work, given the constitutional settlement in London. It should be endorsed by the Committee. 
 Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 58 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Schedule 22A to the Highways Act 1980

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: I have a brief question. The second offence listed in this particular schedule relates to the failure of the owner of a skip to ensure that the skip is properly lit and marked. Could the Minister tell me whether there could be any circumstances whereby the owner of a skip could be under a higher duty than the owner of a car? In other words, if a motor vehicle is parked on a road, and does not need lights at night and the police will not bother with it, would that similarly apply to a skip, or is the owner of a skip under a more stringent duty with regard to this lighting provision?

Tony McNulty: As I understand it, under the existing licensing regime owners of skips are under precisely that higher duty. If there is a skip as an obstacle on the roadside it must, under current licensing regimes, be fully lit at night, in ways that stationed cars do not have to be. I will advise the right hon. Gentleman if the situation is not as I have stated, but as I understand it, as part of the licensing regime, certainly in London and I suspect outside, a skip must be lit at night to show to people that there is this stationary obstacle that is not as it should be. The skip should be properly lighted during the hours of darkness; whether with reflective or fluorescent material or otherwise, it is so marked. That is absolutely the case, apparently, according to clause 139 of something or other, which I will let the Committee know about in a moment.

Christopher Chope: The point made in response to my hon. Friend's question underlines our concern about the use of fixed penalty offences in cases where the offence may well be subject to mitigation. If one is responsible for a skip and has lit it, but the lights are removed, an absolute offence, subject to a fixed penalty, has been committed. In such circumstances, if there was a prosecution, there would have been a proper investigation and the prosecution probably would not have proceeded when it realised that it was not the fault of the owner because the lights had been removed. That is an example of the inflexibility that is introduced as soon as there are fixed-penalty offences.

Tony McNulty: Let me turn round the argument that the hon. Gentleman has been pursuing for the best part of the day. That duty has been in the Highways Act since 1980 and there is no substantial difference between what has prevailed in the last 24 years and what will prevail if a fixed penalty notice is added to it. If it has been a calamity to have such an oppressive measure for the past 24 years, that will not change just because of the introduction of a fixed penalty notice. If
 that has not happened in the past 24 years, it will not happen because of the subsequent addition of fixed penalty offence status, rather than the status afforded by the relevant part of the principal Act, in this case the Highways Act 1980. I explained the position to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire in terms of the lighting on skips.
 Question put, That this schedule be the fifth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 - SCHEDULE 22B TO THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

Motion made and Question put, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

NOESChope, Mr. ChristopherKnight, Mr. GregWilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to. 
 Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Builders' skips: charge for occupation

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 200, in
page 34, leave out line 13.

Nigel Beard: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 201, in 
page 34, leave out lines 19 and 20.
 Amendment No. 194, in 
page 34, line 18, at end insert 
 'giving recognition to the particular circumstances of terraced housing'.
 Government amendments Nos. 63 and 64. 
 Amendment No. 195, in 
clause 64, page 37, line 15, at end insert 
 'giving recognition to the particular circumstances of terraced housing'.
 Amendment No. 202, in 
page 37, leave out lines 16 and 17.
 Government amendments No. 65 and 66.

Christopher Chope: I shall not speak to my amendment, thereby allowing the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government amendments.

Tony McNulty: The Government amendments are tidying-up amendments. People always baulk when a Minister says that, but these really are what I claim them to be. Clause 63(5) states that certain provisions in clause 62, which apply to the establishment of charging for overrunning schemes for skips in the highway would also apply to the lane rental charging schemes for skips under clause 63. Those include the provision in clause 62(5) that regulations under that section can require the owner of a skip to give a highway authority an estimate of how long the skip is expected to remain on the street, and that the authority will be deemed to have accepted that estimate as a reasonable one unless it indicates otherwise. Authorities need that information to calculate whether skips have overrun their permitted duration. However, it is not needed for lane rental. The only information needed to calculate charges for that is when a skip was placed in a road and when it was removed.
 The reference in clause 63(5) to subsection (5) is a mistake, which Government amendment No. 64 removes. Government amendment No. 66 has the same effect, except that it removes an equivalent reference in clause 65(6) to subsection (7), which relates to charges for placing scaffolding and other building materials on the highway. Those are simply minor, cross-referencing points. 
 Government amendments Nos. 63 and 65 remove a couple of inconsistencies in clauses 62 and 64, which respectively cover charges for skips and for scaffolding and building materials, when agreed durations are overrun. Amendment No. 63 places in clause 62 a similar provision to that in clause 64(9), which explains that regulations can set different overrun charges for different circumstances—for example, they can be higher or lower depending on how much of a road is affected by an obstruction. Amendment No. 65 places in clause 64 similar wording to that in clause 62(7), which makes it clear that the regulations can state what method should be used to calculate, for example, how long a skip has occupied a street. 
 Those are not substantial policy changes that have crept in through devious means because we changed out mind when the Bill was published. They simply cross-reference minor points in other clauses. I commend all of the Government amendments to the Committee.

John Mann: The two amendments that I tabled are merely probing amendments. I seek the Minister's assurance that the legislation will not end up being a cash cow, with which local authorities can keep raising money, while having a disproportionate impact on
 communities in terraced housing. It will have a big impact on all current and former mining areas, in which getting work done on one's house means having a skip on the road because there is nowhere else for it to go.
 I seek assurance that local authorities will not be able use the legislation deliberately or inadvertently in a way that will have a disproportionate impact on people who live in what is by far the lowest value housing and who, I suggest, are in the least well-off sections of society.

Tony McNulty: As both sections 140A and 171A make clear in the principal Act, the Secretary of State can set out the framework for charging regimes in regulations. Among other things, that framework could apply the charging system to certain types of roads only, or, as provided for in clause 62(8), it could set different levels of charges, or none at all, in particular circumstances. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks about terraced housing.

Christopher Chope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 63, in 
page 35, line 3, leave out from 'skip' to end of line 6 and insert— 
 '(8) The regulations may prescribe different rates of charge according to— 
 (a) the extent to which the skip occupies the highway; 
 (b) the place and time of the occupation; 
 (c) such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Builders' skips: charge determined by reference

Amendment made: No. 64, in 
page 36, line 26, leave out ', (5)'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I shall not detain the Committee with a lengthy argument against lane rental, as we have had that but, for the reasons that we articulated earlier, we wish to vote against this clause.

Greg Knight: May I make a slightly different point? There is a growing concern that when local authorities issue parking permits, they issue more permits than there are places, and that instead of receiving twice the income for the number of parking places, they may receive thrice the income. They could charge rental for a builder's skip parked in a resident's parking bay, and they will already have sold that bay twice or three times. There is concern at what the Government are doing, and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when the regulations are made and the fees are
 set, as well as the fact that some unscrupulous builders might think it cheaper to leave the skip on the back of a lorry and park the lorry.
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 - Scaffolding, building materials and excavations: charge for occupation of highway for unreasonable period

Amendment made: No. 65, in 
page 37, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(8A) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the period for which the highway is affected by the structure, thing deposited or excavation.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 - Scaffolding, building materials and excavations: charge determined by reference to duration of occupation of highway

Amendment made: No. 66, in 
page 39, line 30, leave out ', (7)'.—[Mr. McNulty.] 
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 - Guidance to local highway authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Many people who have been worried about there not being a level paying field will welcome this clause, so far as it goes. However, there does not seem to be any provision requiring the highway authorities to comply with guidance; they only have to ''have regard'' to it. Is not the Minister being soft on the highway authorities?

Tony McNulty: No. Under law, it means entirely the same. If they are expected to have regard to a particular set of guidance, that is the first port of
 call. Any subsequent call will determine whether they transgressed. It is as simple as that.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 5 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.